Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

On 8/13/2016 at 0:19 PM, Fergasun said:

Wow - great answer to a tough question. I had not seen that before.   

I agree he gave a great answer. I have to argue, though, that he didn't address directly the question asked. The gentleman asked, "...why do you and Hillary Clinton want to restrict and control..." The President answered that he has never tried "taking away folks' guns" and "...never have I proposed confiscating..."  Then he went on to use the normal gun and car comparison.

This is the same dance we always do. Neither side can directly address the other sides points. They both dance around the same talking points...

3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

What's that all about? ^

Afraid the medical marijuana is going to impair their judgement?

It's nonsense.  But the gun-control crowd will be in here demanding the same logic be used to deny anyone using anti-depressants. And the gun-rights crowd will complain about the slippery slope.

Round and round, weeeeeeeeee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

new gun control idea

legalize pot - require you give up your guns

bet a lot of guns get turned in

:)

 

Now that I've read the actual issue, the AP tweet couldn't have been more misleading. It's sad that even the AP has fallen to such pathetic levels.

It's not a ban on selling guns to medical marijuana card holders.

It's recognition that marijuana is still considered an illegal drug at the federal level and that gun dealers are required to follow federal gun laws about selling to drug users, and that gun dealers have been advised by the federal agencies to assume that a person with the card uses the illegal drug (pretty safe assumption I imagine)

So woman sues. The issue isn't selling guns to people with medical marijuana cards.

The issue is that our federal government decided to go about legalizing marijuana by letting the states do it then telling the federal agencies to just not "do anything" about it. Thanks to this bull**** way of pushing the issue we're stuck in this weird situation where if you have a legal right to own/use marijuana in your state (at the state level), you're still violating a federal law about guns and illegal drugs (and fall into a corner case where you put a gun dealer at risk if they sell you a gun)

The solution is to stop this nonsense with the marijuana legalization. either make it a state-only thing, a federal thing and enforce it, or legalize it federally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woman accidentally shoots self while holstering gun in Walmart parking lot

MECOSTA COUNTY, MI -- A 23-year-old woman accidentally shot herself in the hip while holstering a handgun in a Walmart parking lot in Big Rapids.

Mecosta County sheriff's deputies responded to the parking lot about 3:25 p.m. Friday, Oct. 21 for the shooting.

Police learned the 23-year-old, from Big Rapids, was attempting to holster her handgun when the gun fired and a bullet struck her hip.

Click on the link for the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police: Drunk tourist brings handgun, ammo into Key West strip club

Key West police say they jailed a drunken tourist for bringing a handgun and a loaded magazine — which he lost in the club — into a Duval Street strip club in violation of Florida law.

The Sig Sauer P-250 handgun did not have a chambered round or a magazine inside but police found the magazine filled with 15 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

Clinton Putnam, 37, of Winter Haven has a concealed-carry permit. But he told police the gun belongs to his brother and he had stashed it in the right front pocket of his khaki shorts because his brother lacks a permit, according to the incident report.

Click on the link for the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's 2 pathetic stories in a row.

Drunk and carrying is about as ignorant as it gets. Then to claim it wasn't his is even further stupidity (even if it is true).

Shooting yourself while holstering is simply irresponsible/negligent). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to rehash, but these are typical handguns that either of these people were carrying. A law can't fix stupid/lazy/irresponsible. 

When you carry, petty distractions are not an option. There is no possible way to fix that through legislation. Unfortunately. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2016 at 8:01 PM, Kosher Ham said:

A law can't fix stupid/lazy/irresponsible. 


Jesus HAROLD Christ....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rifle discharges at Montana gun show, injuring 2

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Authorities say a bolt-action rifle was fired during a gun show in Billings, Montana, injuring a man and a young girl.

Capt. Bill Michaelis of the Yellowstone County Sheriff's Office told the Billings Gazette that a vendor was showing the gun to somebody when it discharged Friday.

Click on the link for the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I am in the minority with this view but I really believe that gun safety needs to start being taught in schools.  like probably around 4th grade.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after the Ohio State "incident" and election of Trump, I wanted to bump this thread up to see if anyone's opinions had evolved.  

Regarding the Trump portion, I will admit I have started carrying my gun far more often than I used to.  I would guess I went from carrying about 20% of the time to now probably 95% of the time.  It's not because I feel emboldened because of trump.  It's not because I have some Rambo fantasy.  It's because I simply don't have the faith in society that I used to and I want to be able to attempt to defend myself and my wife if needed.  Has Trump being elected changed your thoughts towards guns at all?  

As far as Trumps ideas towards gun control, I'm torn.  I like the idea that I will be allowed to carry on base.  I want to see how it is implemented but in general, I have always thought it made no sense that I can carry a gun in over half the country but I can't have a gun in my vehicle on base.  The government won't hesitate to hand me a weapon and send me to the sand box but I can't be trusted with a pistol at home.  I also can't carry my weapon most days out in town because a trip on base means I can't have it with me.  Doesn't seem logical to me.  That said, I don't know how much I like his National Gun License or whatever he is calling it.  It goes against my beliefs in states rights.  I could possibly support it if the Right instituted some basic rules to get it (background check, training, recertification every few years, etc) but you know that ain't happening.  Have your thoughts evolved at all?

Now for the Ohio State part.  This started getting addressed in that thread but I really thought it belonged here.  One, it highlights one of the reasons why I carry more often.  Those people were very lucky an officer responded so quickly.  That won't always be the case.  And it shows that just getting rid of guns won't keep you safe.  That brings me to my second, and probably most controversial, part.....

Does the fact that this was done without a gun change your thoughts on gun control?  ***ducks**.       Before people fire off a reactionary post please at least put some thought into it.  My opinions on what gun control rules there should be are well documented in this thread and I don't think they have really changed so please don't attempt to tell me what I believe.  This incident shows crazy people are going to do crazy things.  Yes you can say that if he had a gun more people would have been injured and you would probably be right.  You can point to really any mass shooting and say not as many people would have died if that person didn't have a gun.  Or you can point to incidents where people were killed where no gun was used.  So let's please avoid cherry picking examples and acting like it proves your point.  The point is crazy will be crazy.  Should we restrict access to guns more while trying to figure out how to address the crazy?  Should we work more on identifying the crazy and restricting access there while loosening the rules for non-crazy (I'm using that as a generic term. Don't get to hung up on the term)?  Should we accept that there will always be crazy and we won't catch it all so just give guns to everyone?  Do you have a different option and has your position evolved at all recently?

 

or are you just tired of talking about gun control and are ready to admit your opinion doesn't mean crap to the policy makers? ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: whether or not the election changed anything for me. 

Well I had been planning to get rid of both of my guns because I have a small child in the house now, don't hunt, and live in a very low crime area. Instead, fearful of the very well armed militia type Trump supporters that seemed increasingly likely to start some sort of conflict, I impulse purchased an assault rifle in case **** hit the fan and I needed to get my family out of the area/country. Since the election? Well the militia type are obviously a lot calmer now because their guy won. But the radicalism running rampant right now has me thinking I should hold onto my firearms. Not because of fear of the govt but because of the crazy gun people. So basically if we had tougher gun laws I wouldn't have felt compelled to buy the AR. 

Ohio State is actually a perfect example in support of tough gun laws. There was a cop there who was armed and neutralized the assailant quickly. The damage done was also significantly mitigated because the assailant did not have a gun. Let's pretend guns were banned in this country and it was REALLY difficult for non-LEOs to get them. What you saw at OSU was what you would have seen at VT, in San Bernadino, in Orlando, in Aurora. A crazy person who wanted to hurt people and was able to with a car or knife, but was able to hurt and kill a LOT fewer people because he didn't have a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Ohio State is actually a perfect example in support of tough gun laws. There was a cop there who was armed and neutralized the assailant quickly. The damage done was also significantly mitigated because the assailant did not have a gun. Let's pretend guns were banned in this country and it was REALLY difficult for non-LEOs to get them. What you saw at OSU was what you would have seen at VT, in San Bernadino, in Orlando, in Aurora. A crazy person who wanted to hurt people and was able to with a car or knife, but was able to hurt and kill a LOT fewer people because he didn't have a gun.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/europe/nice-france-truck/

Remember Paris in the summer almost 80 people killed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it didn't take long for the examples to start.  Can we all just agree that it is easy to do a lot of damage with a gun and not much more difficult to do a lot of damage with another tool but doing so isn't as popular?  Then we can debate the whys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Potential SoS Gen. Petreaus is in favor of more gun control. That should sell well with the NRA backed GOP. 

 

In favor of less war as well.....details matter though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Ohio State is actually a perfect example in support of tough gun laws. There was a cop there who was armed and neutralized the assailant quickly. 

But how often will that be the case?  I know where I live police response time averages something like 12 minutes.  And that isn't just for home disturbance calls.  There was an armed robbery about a year ago where the cashier ended up getting shot.  It took the police 14 minutes to respond from the time the 911 call was made.  And this isn't a rural area or anything.  I think using this instance where there was a cop close by is an outlier.  It's why I support a requirement for training but also want to open up the places where a person can carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the cop responded in 1 minute, which almost never occurs.

if you could guarantee that sort of response time more folk would lock their guns away or do w/o

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: national gun license

 

I always thought the left could use a national ccw/cch as leverage for stricter gun control.

Since the right controls everything now it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Especially if they pass it, with nothing on gun control. That was the last piece of leverage I saw the left getting, and it would be gone.

Well, that and stacking SCOTUS, but that's already gone now.

This was a bad election for the left to lose, especially to lose it this way. Any hope of increased gun control may be wiped out permenately, depending on how federal judgeships and SCOTUS are filled...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tshile said:

Re: national gun license

 

I always thought the left could use a national ccw/cch as leverage for stricter gun control.

Since the right controls everything now it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Especially if they pass it, with nothing on gun control. That was the last piece of leverage I saw the left getting, and it would be gone.

Well, that and stacking SCOTUS, but that's already gone now.

This was a bad election for the left to lose, especially to lose it this way. Any hope of increased gun control may be wiped out permenately, depending on how federal judgeships and SCOTUS are filled...

I would have supported that in theory.  I'd need to see details but I like the idea of reasonable gun control and not having to worry about the different laws in every different county/city.  But could the Fed even do that?  I'm no lawyer but I would think a lot of localities would balk at the idea of the Fed forcing them to tighten or loosen their gun laws.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.